Design thinking and radical innovation: enter the smartwatch
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to expand the understanding of the design thinking (DT) field and provides evidence that DT as an innovation mindset centered on user/human needs is able to lead enterprises to the development of radical product innovation. Design/methodology/approach The study is based on an illustrative case analysis of four eras of radical innovations in the watch industry, from the mechanical wristwatches to smartwatches. Findings The findings from the watch industry substantiate the developed DT triangle framework for designers, managers and executives, enabling the development of radical product innovation. Originality/value The study provides evidence for the claim that human-centered approach (rather than design-driven, meaning-changing approach) in DT can successfully lead to radical product innovations. For this, this paper distinguishes between “need” and “meaning” in the DT field and reemphasize the role of creating empathy with users to be able to identify their newly shaped needs. Fulfilling these newly shaped needs would ultimately result in the development of radically new products.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it